Related story: Fire damages Wall Street home
http://rutlandherald.com/article/20150102/NEWS02/701029983
The owner of this home on Wall Street in Springfield is fighting its town-issued demolition.
Photo: AP PHOTOPublished January 2, 2015 in the Rutland Herald
Springfield man appeals second demolition order
By SUSAN SMALLHEER
Staff Writer
SPRINGFIELD — A Springfield man, who already is fighting one town-issued demolition order in the Vermont Supreme Court, has filed another appeal on a second property, this one on Wall Street.
Town Manager Thomas Yennerell said Wednesday that Donald Bishop had filed an appeal to the latest demolition order, which was approved by the Springfield Select Board last week.
Yennerell said the Select Board would set a date for the appeal at its next meeting Jan. 12, and he said he expected the hearing would be held Jan. 26. The town charter requires that a hearing be held within 40 days of the appeal being filed.
Bishop, after asking for additional time to file a brief with the Vermont Supreme Court concerning his Valley Street property, has filed appeal papers in the state’s highest court, the town manager said. The town has 30 days to reply, he said.
The latest demolition order is for Bishop’s house at 188 Wall St., which was gutted by a fire about 18 months ago. Yennerell said Bishop was being represented by Richard Bowen, a Springfield attorney.
The building was inspected by a three-member committee, including structural engineer David Hindinger of Heritage Engineering of Perkinsville, Springfield Fire Chief Russell Thompson and Deputy Fire Chief Scott Richardson, acting as the town’s health officer.
“I believe it should be torn down,” said Thompson, who said he deferred to Hindinger’s opinion, since he was the structural engineer.
“I recommend for it to be demolished,” Hindinger said.
When Selectman George McNaughton asked Hindinger whether the building’s foundation was cracked, Hindinger said he did not look at the foundation, but the external damage was so great, it was clear it should be torn down.
The most serious damage to the building is to the supporting and nonsupporting beams, he said.
The fire chief said the building had been open and exposed to the elements for the past two years, which he said was responsible for 50 percent of the damage to the building.
The Select Board voted unanimously to have the fire-damaged building, which is in the middle of a residential neighborhood, torn down.
Under the town ordinance covering unsafe buildings, the property owner has 60 days to tear down the condemned building, or the town will do it and bill the property owner. Bishop’s filing of an appeal of the decision stops that 60-day clock.
83
Defending Donald Bishop against an entire community he has so negatively impacted speaks of attorney Richard Bowen's character. Trust he'd have a whole different perspective if his home's equity was destroyed by such eye sores.
ReplyDeleteEvery person deserves the full protection of the law, no matter how misguided or guilty they may be.
ReplyDeleteThere is no one that views Donald Bishop as a victim in these proceedings. He has been afforded due process and generous patience by the community. It's now time for "full protection of the law" to serve the victimized home owners.
DeleteShould he wish to file suit after these properties are cleared and sold off to highest bidder, fine. But he'll have to prove loss and that's not likely.
What is this guy on?
ReplyDeleteIt is not as though these dilapidated properties are located in idyllic neighborhoods with high property values to begin with, however this issue seems to have captured the attention of enough of the town that the municipal government now seems brave enough to address it and try to leverage some favorable public opinion from it.
ReplyDeleteThis is typical for Springfield's inept government - apply more Band Aids to the symptoms and continue to ignore the root cause. Springfield's abysmal economic base has been and will continue to be its great undoing. The lack of industry and jobs continues to befuddle a town that lacks any worthwhile strategy or mechanism for attracting them.
Springfield could tear down every property that it deems unsafe, unsound, or an eyesore and the town's prospects still wouldn't improve.
Until the town begins thinking much more multi-dimensionally, it is destined to dwell in decay.
11:51, Assuming that the resolution of the drugs and gangs problem is one of them, what other changes would improve the town's prospects,?
DeleteNot all are in slum locals. Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't he own that piece of Cra? on Main Street just down from the medical center. Someone tried to cover up that ugly brown particle board dump with really cool paintings. Ripe er down so the river can be seen. Or raise the tax on it sky high.
DeleteWhat are you talking about "It is not as though these dilapidated properties are located in idyllic neighborhoods with high property values to begin with". Are you kidding me? It makes a difference on there location? Wow!
DeleteHow about thinking beyond your petty little interest and of those that do live near these "projects". The eyesore alone brings down the whole area, if you drive pass it on the way home you can only shake your head in wonder. How about the critters that may be finding a home in there? Where do you think those rats, bugs and whatever go when it is torn down. My guess close by to new warmer homes. And God forbid a child or two wanders into the building playing. Can't happen? A lot of things have happen that can't in Springfield.
The whole town needs to be picked up! Your special little area (or so you think) is pretty much worthless too. Here's an idea lets jack those dumps up and move them next to you until there is resolution. Just note your address here and we'll start the fund raising to get on it. Wow, what nerve.
Your emotionalism (and imagination) is running too high, 1:39, and is clearly clouding your objectivity. It also appears that you possess either an inferiority complex and/or a chip on your shoulder as a result of watching your town decay around you. There are no objections to tearing down dilapidated structures. Press on with it. However, as usual with Springfield, these symbolic little initiatives take on a disproportionate importance that then obscures the municipal government's overall ineptitude. From a purely economic standpoint, Springfield is a poor town and has done little to nothing over the past three decades to address that. But to disguise that, our so called town leaders and luminaries periodically trot out their vision of creating a boutique little village as could be found in a Thomas Kinkade painting, but they have absolutely no foundation upon which to base it.
DeleteAnd by the way, there are already plenty of dumpy domiciles surrounding property I own, so jacking up a few more and delivering them nearby won't hurt my feelings. Heck, it might even help lower my property taxes! If that's the course of action you choose, don't bother trying to saddle others with the cost of your idea, just step up and pay the relocation bill yourself! In other words, put your money where your mouth is! LOL!
He can afford a lawyer but can't afford do something about the houses he owns????
ReplyDelete